JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J.?The State has called in question the order of acquittal dated 18.3.1996 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Gunupur in S.C. No. 6 of 1995 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 366/354, I.P.C. Facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal runs as under: On 21.6.1994 the victim with other girls of the village had gone to collect mushroom from a field, having collected some mushroom, she was taking berries standing underneath a tree and was enjoying the time as such with her friends. It is alleged that at that time the respondent arrived there, caught hold the hands of the victim and physically lifted her on his shoulder, when the friends of the victim left for village and immediately gave information about the said incident. It is next alleged that the respondent first of all took the victim to Bari Mohuru and then to Naringipanga and lastly she was taken to village Mudra. On receiving information, the father of the victim who is the informant of this case with his son went in search of the victim at village Mudra and there when they called the victim by her name at one place of the village the response came that the victim immediately rushed to them and the respondent fled away. They rescued the victim, then came to the victim. As it usually happens in such rural areas in the scheduled district, the informant approached the co-villagers in narrating the incident. So, the father of the respondent was called where he feigned his ignorance about the incident. Finding no other option, the father of the victim lodged the F.I.R. The said F.I.R. being received at the police station, the case was registered and the investigation commenced, in course of the same, besides examination of the witnesses the victim girl was medically examined and so also her wearing apparels etc. being the incriminating materials were seized, on culmination of the investigation, charge-sheet having been submitted placing the respondent for trial in the Court of law, he faced the same. 2. Prosecution in order to bring home charges against the respondent has brought twelve witnesses to the witness box. The star witness for the prosecution are the victim P.W. 2, her friends P.Ws. 3, 9 and 10 and lastly the informant P.W. 1. 2. Prosecution in order to bring home charges against the respondent has brought twelve witnesses to the witness box. The star witness for the prosecution are the victim P.W. 2, her friends P.Ws. 3, 9 and 10 and lastly the informant P.W. 1. Brother of the victim has been cited as P.W. 4, the co-villagers P.Ws. 5 and 6 have also been examined as a measure of providing some corroboration to the evidence of the victim. The Radiologist conducting the ossification test in P.W. 7 whereas P.W. 8 is the Medical Officer who had the occasion to examine the victim P.W. 2. Finally, the opinion having been given by the Professor, Forensic Medicines, M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, he has come to the witness box as P.W. 12. The Investigating Officer of this case has come to depose as P.W. 11. 3. The Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case has framed two points for consideration in order to arrive at a finding with regard to the complicity of the respondent in commission of the aforesaid crime and those are (1) whether the respondent kidnapped the victim a minor girl with intent that she may be compelled to many against her will and (2) whether the respondent used criminal force to the victim intending to outrage her modesty by such force. Having gone to answer these points, the Trial Court has analyzed evidence and in its wisdom has evaluated the same, in the backdrop of the ingredients required to be proved for the purpose of established of such offences for which the respondent stood charged. Finally, it has been said that the evidence is lacking to establish the case of kidnapping with an intention to compel the victim to marry. Next, having gone to find out as to whether the offence under section 363, I.P.C. can come in, the answer has been given in, the negative as according to the Trial Court the required ingredients for establishment of an offence under Section 363, I.P.C. are also not made out. It shows that the Trial Court was well aware of the legal position that in a trial under Section 366. I.P.C. even when the prosecution fails to establish the required ingredients for that offence, the Court can look into the evidence to ascertain whether an offence under Section 363, I.P.C. can come in. It shows that the Trial Court was well aware of the legal position that in a trial under Section 366. I.P.C. even when the prosecution fails to establish the required ingredients for that offence, the Court can look into the evidence to ascertain whether an offence under Section 363, I.P.C. can come in. So, the approach of the Trial Court appears to be in the right direction. While referring the answer as about the non-establishment of the case under Section 363, I.P.C., the Trial court has found that the incident, as projected by the prosecution has not been factually established through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence. Then, coming to the charge under Section 354, I.P.C. similar answer has followed that the evidence remains insufficient to establish. So, the order of acquittal has been recorded, which is now impugned in this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the appreciation of evidence as has been made in the case by the Trial Court is improper and not inconsonance with the settled principles of law. According to him with a strenuous exercise the Court below has found out some silly reasons in saying that there arises doubt in the mind. It is his submission that such course adopted by the Trial Court is frowned upon by the settled principles of law in a case of this nature. The Trial court ought to have given some leverage while appreciating the evidence of the victim and in the absence of anything on record to show that there was any reason for the victim to falsely rope in making such allegation inviting social stigma and dent on her honour and dignity, the answers ought to have been given in the affirmative and in favour of the prosecution. In order to buttress the above submission, learned Counsel for the State has with pain placed the evidence of the victim while side by side drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of her father (P.W. 1) and brother (P.W. 4). In summing up, he contends that the Trial Court has erred in law by acquitting the respondent and the finding being based on improper appreciation of evidence is perverse and that having caused gross miscarriage of justice, this Court's interference is called for to prevent the same. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, supports the finding of the Trial Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, supports the finding of the Trial Court. According to him, those are based on just and proper appreciation of evidence. He seriously refuted the submission of the adversary Counsel that silly reasons have been assigned to doubt the testimony of the victim. It is his further submission that this being an appeal against the order of acquittal as per the settled principle of law even if the Court arrives at another view on the basis of the evidence, it should not ordinarily interfere unless the view taken by the Trial Court is found to be absolutely unreasonable or against the evidence on record. 6. Before going to appreciate the evidence in the light of the contentions as advanced, it is felt apposite to take note of the settled position of law with regard to the scope and power of this Court for interference with the order of acquittal. The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that while High Court has full powers to appreciate the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based and to act on its own thereof, it will not do so lightly and will be slow to reverse an acquittal, except for strong and compelling reasons when it differs from that of the Trial Court. The paramount consideration in the matter is to avoid miscarriage of justice. Of course where two views are possible and the Trial Court has taken a reasonable view and acquittal the accused, the High Court in appeal cannot be interfere with such finding but when there is perverse finding based on erroneous appreciation of evidence and a serious miscarriage of justice has been caused, the High Court has ample power to reverse that finding. 7. Keeping the aforesaid settled position of law in mind and in the backdrop of the submissions as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, now this Court is called upon to take up the exercise of reappraisal of evidence. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the prosecution has well proved that she was under 18 years of age. The evidence of father is that she was 17 years old and that of doctor (P.W. 12) is that she was in between 12-14 years of age. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the prosecution has well proved that she was under 18 years of age. The evidence of father is that she was 17 years old and that of doctor (P.W. 12) is that she was in between 12-14 years of age. The F.I.R. story from the beginning is that the respondent appeared before the victim and her friends when they were enjoying underneath a tree taking berries, next, it is said that the respondent caught hold of the victim and dragged her. It is also stated that the friends present, i.e., P.Ws. 3, 9 and 10 resisted and tried to physically rescue the victim when respondent having lifted the victim made her sit on the shoulder and ran inside the forest. This F.I.R. (Ex. 2) has been lodged after the victim has been rescued and after the Panchayati was over. None of the witnesses including the victim have stated anything about the reasons or intention of the respondent in taking away the victim. Absolutely, no further act is attributed upon the respondent. Although just in a plain way it is stated by the victim P.W. 2 that the respondent was taking her to keep as his wife, nothing more is stated that the respondent at any time expressed such desire either to the victim or anybody else, it has been deposed by P.W. 2 that on being asked by her father, she narrated the entire incident and told that the respondent fact does not find mention in the F.I.R. Ex. 2 which reads that respondent took the victim catching her hand. When the friends of the victim are the witnesses to the incident at the beginning as regards the respondent appearing, physically lifting away the victim etc., none of them have supported the prosecution case and rather all of them have stated differently projecting their absence. In view of above, this fact regarding forcible lifting despite resistance and carrying away against the wish and desire appears to be doubtful and thus to have not been proved by clear, cogent and acceptable evidence. P.W. 4, the brother of the victim although has stated that on inquiry the victim told that the respondent had forcibly taken her away, the same is not the evidence of the P.W. 1. On a careful comparison of the evidence on P.Ws. P.W. 4, the brother of the victim although has stated that on inquiry the victim told that the respondent had forcibly taken her away, the same is not the evidence of the P.W. 1. On a careful comparison of the evidence on P.Ws. 1 and 4 doubt also arises in mind to accept the evidence that they had gone together in search of the victim. When P.W. 1 states that he with P.W. 4 had gone in search of victim, P.W. 4 says that while going, on the way he saw P.W. 1 and victim coming. Moreover, the place wherefrom the victim is said to have been taken away is about 100 cubits from the village and so also the place where she met her father. It is not stated that victim had raised any hulla when there is no evidence of any threat being given by the respondent nor there was gagging etc. She has stated that the respondent's family members and her family members were in visiting terms and she categorically states that respondent never misbehaved her. Even with regard to place where the victim was found has not been clearly established when the evidence of P.W. 6 is taken into consideration that on his asking P.W. 1 replied that the victim was found on the way to village Birli while she was going to that village. This P.W. 6 is also silent about this respondent's implication as to have been told by P.Ws. 1 or 4. Similarly P.W. 5 is silent on the score of respondent forcibly taking away. The evidence of all these witnesses being taken together clearly does not go to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it is the respondent who had taken away the victim. With such a state of affair in the evidence, it is seen that the Trial Court has gone for a detail discussion and then the finding has been arrived at that the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. or 363, I.P.C. are not made out and also the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. with which this Court find no reason to differ. Therefore, the order of acquittal impugned in this appeal found to be based on just and proper appreciation of evidence and on reappraisal of the same, this Court find no reason to accord any disagreement. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed